This topic is in the 2016 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2016The mystery of the Zeiss look?
p.9 #1The mystery of the Zeiss look?
zhangyue wrote:
First, if you are really not care about Gear its...
I think it might be useful for you to try to understand my perspective a bit more clearly.
It is not true that I do "not care about gear," and I'm at a loss to understand why you attribute that strange idea to me. I consider my equipment choices to be very important, and I take them very seriously. The particular choices of gear that a person may make are not necessarily evidence of a person's level of "care," any more than a choice to buy, say, a Prius or a Lexus or a Ford pickup tell us that a person does or does not care about vehicles.
It is true that I regard photography as being more about photographs than about cameras, but that doesn't mean that cameras are not important. It is also true that I do not believe that "magical" lenses from any manufacturer are particularly related to the quality of the photography.
Does that help you understand?
I have many reasons for caring about photographic equipment and how it works. For one thing, this helps me make intelligent choices about equipment that will best work for my photography. It also helps me understand how the gear works and how I can use it best in the field. For example, since I may be carrying two or three lenses whose overlapping focal length ranges all cover the length I want to shoot at, are there differences among them that might help me decide which to use?
Also, people often ask me about equipment — ranging from beginners looking for a first camera to professionals who are interested in sharing opinions on equipment — so I want to be knowledgable on the subject. (It was important to know about certain technical issues when I wrote a book that was published last year.)
At the same time, one of the things that I have learned about photography and about photographic equipment, through experience with both, is that the path to excellent photography is not nearly as dependent on finding perfect gear as some imagine it to be. Good and appropriate equipment is important, but as in so many things, it is possible to almost fetishize the gear.
I have no doubt that there are people producing excellent photography who prefer to use Zeiss or whatever other brand we might discuss in the alt forum, but I'm equally certain that there are as many great photographers producing equally great work with a huge range of other brands and types of gear, and that the gear choices (beyond the threshold of finding equipment that works well for one's types of photography) have just about the least significant effect on the quality of their work.
Take care,
Dan
Edited on Mar 04, 2016 at 03:02 PM · View previous versions
First, if you are really not care about Gear its...
I think it might be useful for you to try to understand my perspective a bit more clearly.
It is not true that I do "not care about gear," and I'm at a loss to understand why you attribute that strange idea to me. I consider my equipment choices to be very important, and I take them very seriously. The particular choices of gear that a person may make are not necessarily evidence of a person's level of "care," any more than a choice to buy, say, a Prius or a Lexus or a Ford pickup tell us that a person does or does not care about vehicles.
It is true that I regard photography as being more about photographs than about cameras, but that doesn't mean that cameras are not important. It is also true that I do not believe that "magical" lenses from any manufacturer are particularly related to the quality of the photography.
Does that help you understand?
I have many reasons for caring about photographic equipment and how it works. For one thing, this helps me make intelligent choices about equipment that will best work for my photography. It also helps me understand how the gear works and how I can use it best in the field. For example, since I may be carrying two or three lenses whose overlapping focal length ranges all cover the length I want to shoot at, are there differences among them that might help me decide which to use?
Also, people often ask me about equipment — ranging from beginners looking for a first camera to professionals who are interested in sharing opinions on equipment — so I want to be knowledgable on the subject. (It was important to know about certain technical issues when I wrote a book that was published last year.)
At the same time, one of the things that I have learned about photography and about photographic equipment, through experience with both, is that the path to excellent photography is not nearly as dependent on finding perfect gear as some imagine it to be. Good and appropriate equipment is important, but as in so many things, it is possible to almost fetishize the gear.
I have no doubt that there are people producing excellent photography who prefer to use Zeiss or whatever other brand we might discuss in the alt forum, but I'm equally certain that there are as many great photographers producing equally great work with a huge range of other brands and types of gear, and that the gear choices (beyond the threshold of finding equipment that works well for one's types of photography) have just about the least significant effect on the quality of their work.
Take care,
Dan
Edited on Mar 04, 2016 at 03:02 PM · View previous versions
Mar 04, 2016 at 12:04 PM
p.9 #2The mystery of the Zeiss look?
Steve Perry wrote:
Yup, I went down the Zeiss road myself, never saw any magic that wasn't already there in the scene to begin with. In fact, I ended up selling my Zeiss and sticking with Nikon - I actually like the way Nikon renders better (not that there's really much of a difference).Do you care to elaborate a bit more?
If there isn't much difference, what was your decision point? I suspect price differences wasn't that big. Some Zeiss are more contrasty than new Nikon lenses (the regular three zooms) I own. In PP contrasty file can get in the way depending on the goal. I am just curious what your experience was.
LukaSure -
I had a Zeiss 18, 21, 25, 28, and 35. I also used Nikon lenses that were either the same or included in the range of my zoom lenses.
IMO I actually liked the way the Nikon glass rendered better. I went for the Zeiss glass initially because I thought the glass was another step up from the Nikon glass and that that I'd see an improvement in my images. However, the truth is when I really looked at it subjectively, the choices I made in subject and light made a FAR greater difference than the lenses...Show more →
Steve, if I were you, I will choose weather sealed Nikon zoom as well.
14-24 is my favorite zoom lens, but under totally dark, the extreme short throw of focus ring give me headache. since the infinity stop for that lens is all over the place within zoom range. and it is very hard to align the focusing ring at full darkness cross the range, often I find out my @14mm shots are sharp but 24mm is not enough for 36M. AF is totally useless at full darkness. I will just list one scenario why I prefer manual prime lens sometimes other than 'fun' factor. Shooting Zeiss OUTS at night is a blast.
As for price, I think it is demand and supply set the market. It is not CanNikon doesn't want to ask more
If they Zeiss are not worth the price for most people they will be long out of business.
Edited on Mar 04, 2016 at 12:14 PM · View previous versions
akul wrote
Steve Perry wrote
GoranPhoto wrote
I never really understood what people meant by the "Zeiss Look" even though I have owned about half a dozen different Zeiss lenses myself for the simple reason that I enjoy good manual focus from time to time. Maybe I'd care and pay more attention if I shot JPEGs and Photoshop wasn't around.If there isn't much difference, what was your decision point? I suspect price differences wasn't that big. Some Zeiss are more contrasty than new Nikon lenses (the regular three zooms) I own. In PP contrasty file can get in the way depending on the goal. I am just curious what your experience was.
Luka
I had a Zeiss 18, 21, 25, 28, and 35. I also used Nikon lenses that were either the same or included in the range of my zoom lenses.
IMO I actually liked the way the Nikon glass rendered better. I went for the Zeiss glass initially because I thought the glass was another step up from the Nikon glass and that that I'd see an improvement in my images. However, the truth is when I really looked at it subjectively, the choices I made in subject and light made a FAR greater difference than the lenses...Show more →
Steve, if I were you, I will choose weather sealed Nikon zoom as well.
14-24 is my favorite zoom lens, but under totally dark, the extreme short throw of focus ring give me headache. since the infinity stop for that lens is all over the place within zoom range. and it is very hard to align the focusing ring at full darkness cross the range, often I find out my @14mm shots are sharp but 24mm is not enough for 36M. AF is totally useless at full darkness. I will just list one scenario why I prefer manual prime lens sometimes other than 'fun' factor. Shooting Zeiss OUTS at night is a blast.
As for price, I think it is demand and supply set the market. It is not CanNikon doesn't want to ask more
If they Zeiss are not worth the price for most people they will be long out of business. Edited on Mar 04, 2016 at 12:14 PM · View previous versions
Mar 04, 2016 at 12:06 PM
p.9 #3The mystery of the Zeiss look?
Andre Labonte wrote:
You are, as is anyone, of course free to make any choice you want. On a personal level you can choose to use coke bottles for lenses if you want — and I'll bet someone has made interesting photographs with them! ;-)
However...
... quite a few people come here to try to learn about photographic topics. With that in mind, and with all due respect to everyone's freedom to make any choice they wish and to the knowledge that different people have different reasons for their choices, it seems reasonable to discuss the claims about almost any gear choices and the impact of those choices on photography.
So, the person who believes that the funkiest, cheapest, least capable camera in the world is just as fine as something more sophisticated is welcome to his or her opinion... and he/she can expect that other viewpoints will be offered here. In the same way, those who believe that expensive, rare, and specialized lenses will make their photographs better in ways worth the cost are welcome to act on that belief, but they can also expect that other viewpoints will be offered.
Take care,
DanHI, Dan,
I generally agree most your opinions about relationship between gear and photography over different posts. But feel disappointed with your latest respond regarding this matter and you seems can’t keep yourself neutral regarding this topic.
First, if you are really not care about Gear itself, you shouldn’t be even in Gear forum. The reason we are here are because we are interested in discussing about gears. I agree mostly if not 100% that photo quality should be isolated with gear quality after certain threshold level but this has nothing to do with why people want own certain lens over others or this doesn’t mean there is no difference between lenses or manufacture.
It is not your coke bottle terminology can cover the case of why I chose the Zeiss or Leica. I have already given good reasons for it: Manual, Build quality (to me), WO rendering (Leica R, OTUS), Ultimate performance (OTUS and 135APO). I am offer my opinion because I want list one case to illustrate why people choose Zeiss or Leica. This has nothing to do with ” In the same way, those who believe that expensive, rare, and specialized lenses will make their photographs better in ways worth the cost are welcome to act on that belief, but they can also expect that other viewpoints will be offered. “ You seems set yourself in confirmation bias loop here.
I want hear what claim you try to make?
All these stem from some people challenge the choices others made. So I want make it clear why I choose the lens I want. What is your disagreement?
Even 5 years ago, there were very good reasons for people choose Zeiss over Canikon. I like Andre’s approach break down the line to individual focal length to make point clear. If you following Zeiss thread, you will realize 80% of users having 21mm&100mm which are strongest two Zeiss lenses compare to any brand over long period. (now OTUS will be a good reason to buy Zeiss as well if you are after what is specialized for, no Canikon offer that.) Before 16-35 and 11-24, there is no WA canon can compete with it. Nikon users are lucky to have 14-24(myself include) so a lot less Nikon user for that lens.
Those few strong performers along as one of few manual only modern lenses gain Zeiss great reputation offering superb manual glass with beautiful rendering and sharpness cross frame. After getting those two, people will get Zeiss fever and start building their Zeiss collection(myself included) adding other strong performers like 35distagon, 50MP, 25 and latestly 15 and 135.
So, whenever I see people proud saying their Zeiss glass great I feel very naturally accept that even nowdays the only Zeiss I have are 55&135, what is wrong is it?hmmmm ... lots of straw man arguments here ... or at the very least taking Dan out of context ... just saying.
e.g. Not caring what someone used to make a beautiful image is not the same as not caring about gear at all. We all have to care about gear to some degree, but it's a question of when and how.
Hi Andre,
You may wish to look at the profiles of some of us from the Alt and Sony Forums that you may not know. Many of us that have known Michael and Harry for years, have some idea as who they are, the equipment that they use, their preferences, as well as the work that they produce.
Rich
zhangyue wrote
gdanmitchell wrote
zhangyue wrote
There is a pattern for this kind of thread every time show up. I don't need defend my choice if I feel there is a difference existing either objectively or subjectively...However...
... quite a few people come here to try to learn about photographic topics. With that in mind, and with all due respect to everyone's freedom to make any choice they wish and to the knowledge that different people have different reasons for their choices, it seems reasonable to discuss the claims about almost any gear choices and the impact of those choices on photography.
So, the person who believes that the funkiest, cheapest, least capable camera in the world is just as fine as something more sophisticated is welcome to his or her opinion... and he/she can expect that other viewpoints will be offered here. In the same way, those who believe that expensive, rare, and specialized lenses will make their photographs better in ways worth the cost are welcome to act on that belief, but they can also expect that other viewpoints will be offered.
Take care,
Dan
I generally agree most your opinions about relationship between gear and photography over different posts. But feel disappointed with your latest respond regarding this matter and you seems can’t keep yourself neutral regarding this topic.
First, if you are really not care about Gear itself, you shouldn’t be even in Gear forum. The reason we are here are because we are interested in discussing about gears. I agree mostly if not 100% that photo quality should be isolated with gear quality after certain threshold level but this has nothing to do with why people want own certain lens over others or this doesn’t mean there is no difference between lenses or manufacture.
It is not your coke bottle terminology can cover the case of why I chose the Zeiss or Leica. I have already given good reasons for it: Manual, Build quality (to me), WO rendering (Leica R, OTUS), Ultimate performance (OTUS and 135APO). I am offer my opinion because I want list one case to illustrate why people choose Zeiss or Leica. This has nothing to do with ” In the same way, those who believe that expensive, rare, and specialized lenses will make their photographs better in ways worth the cost are welcome to act on that belief, but they can also expect that other viewpoints will be offered. “ You seems set yourself in confirmation bias loop here.
I want hear what claim you try to make?
All these stem from some people challenge the choices others made. So I want make it clear why I choose the lens I want. What is your disagreement?
Even 5 years ago, there were very good reasons for people choose Zeiss over Canikon. I like Andre’s approach break down the line to individual focal length to make point clear. If you following Zeiss thread, you will realize 80% of users having 21mm&100mm which are strongest two Zeiss lenses compare to any brand over long period. (now OTUS will be a good reason to buy Zeiss as well if you are after what is specialized for, no Canikon offer that.) Before 16-35 and 11-24, there is no WA canon can compete with it. Nikon users are lucky to have 14-24(myself include) so a lot less Nikon user for that lens.
Those few strong performers along as one of few manual only modern lenses gain Zeiss great reputation offering superb manual glass with beautiful rendering and sharpness cross frame. After getting those two, people will get Zeiss fever and start building their Zeiss collection(myself included) adding other strong performers like 35distagon, 50MP, 25 and latestly 15 and 135.
So, whenever I see people proud saying their Zeiss glass great I feel very naturally accept that even nowdays the only Zeiss I have are 55&135, what is wrong is it?
e.g. Not caring what someone used to make a beautiful image is not the same as not caring about gear at all. We all have to care about gear to some degree, but it's a question of when and how.
Hi Andre,
You may wish to look at the profiles of some of us from the Alt and Sony Forums that you may not know. Many of us that have known Michael and Harry for years, have some idea as who they are, the equipment that they use, their preferences, as well as the work that they produce.
Rich
Mar 04, 2016 at 12:11 PM
p.9 #4The mystery of the Zeiss look?
zhangyue wrote:
Yup, I went down the Zeiss road myself, never saw any magic that wasn't already there in the scene to begin with. In fact, I ended up selling my Zeiss and sticking with Nikon - I actually like the way Nikon renders better (not that there's really much of a difference).Do you care to elaborate a bit more?
If there isn't much difference, what was your decision point? I suspect price differences wasn't that big. Some Zeiss are more contrasty than new Nikon lenses (the regular three zooms) I own. In PP contrasty file can get in the way depending on the goal. I am just curious what your experience was.
LukaSure -
I had a Zeiss 18, 21, 25, 28, and 35. I also used Nikon lenses that were either the same or included in the range of my zoom lenses.
IMO I actually liked the way the Nikon glass rendered better. I went for the Zeiss glass initially because I thought the glass was another step up from the Nikon glass and that that I'd see an improvement in my images. However, the truth is when I really looked at it subjectively, the choices I made in subject and light made a FAR greater difference than the lenses ever did. Like Craig said a few pages back, line a bunch of photographers up at sunrise in Canyonlands and the difference in photos is NOT the lens.
When I did shoot the same or similar scenes with the Nikon and Zeiss, it was more or less a wash for me. The lenses did render differently, but I actually liked the more neutral colors of the Nikon. Some of the Zeiss glass seems to add a bit of warmth or something to the image - and to me that's an unwanted "feature". I like to start out fairly neutral and post process from there.
That said, the differences between the Zeiss and Nikon were subtle and not something I felt any normal person viewing my photos would ever notice. (And, like I said, I'm not sure the Zeiss glass was actually "better" in my opinion, just different).
I also didn't like the build quality. Just because it's a metal lens, doesn't make it better. I shoot landscapes and I often do so in wet, rainy, dusty, or similarly harsh environments. The Zeiss glass is not sealed in any way and allows moisture and dust in far too easily for my purposes. After awhile, you get sick of drying them out in your hotel room with a hair dryer. Nikon may have more plastic, but they do keep moisture and dust out better.
So, in short, I didn't see anything special about them, they cost more than the Nikon equivalents, they aren't weather sealed, and even if there is something "special" about them I can easily get the look I want in post.
As such, I don't drink the Zeiss Kool-Aid anymore. In fact, I think the reason people sometimes attack Zeiss glass when these threads come up is because of the premium Zeiss asks for their glass - whereas other 3rd party manufacturers are typically less than their Nikon counterparts. If the premium was actually worth it, I'd be on board, but I just don't see it.
So there you go, just my opinion - shoot whatever makes you happy!
Steve, if I were you, I will choose weather sealed Nikon zoom as well.
14-24 is my favorite zoom lens, but under totally dark, the extreme short throw of focus ring give me headache. since the infinity stop for that lens is all over the place within zoom range. and it is very hard to align the focusing ring at full darkness cross the range, often I find out my @14mm shots are sharp but 24mm is not enough for 36M. AF is totally useless at full darkness. I will just list one scenario why I prefer manual lens sometimes...Show more →
I agree 100% about the 14-24 at night - those are one of the few times I wish I had my 18 or 21 back
Also, I've never shot an Otus, so my comments are only focused on the lenses I mentioned. I'd certainly be willing to try an Otus, and I'm sure it would impress.
Steve Perry wrote
akul wrote
Steve Perry wrote
GoranPhoto wrote
I never really understood what people meant by the "Zeiss Look" even though I have owned about half a dozen different Zeiss lenses myself for the simple reason that I enjoy good manual focus from time to time. Maybe I'd care and pay more attention if I shot JPEGs and Photoshop wasn't around.If there isn't much difference, what was your decision point? I suspect price differences wasn't that big. Some Zeiss are more contrasty than new Nikon lenses (the regular three zooms) I own. In PP contrasty file can get in the way depending on the goal. I am just curious what your experience was.
Luka
I had a Zeiss 18, 21, 25, 28, and 35. I also used Nikon lenses that were either the same or included in the range of my zoom lenses.
IMO I actually liked the way the Nikon glass rendered better. I went for the Zeiss glass initially because I thought the glass was another step up from the Nikon glass and that that I'd see an improvement in my images. However, the truth is when I really looked at it subjectively, the choices I made in subject and light made a FAR greater difference than the lenses ever did. Like Craig said a few pages back, line a bunch of photographers up at sunrise in Canyonlands and the difference in photos is NOT the lens.
When I did shoot the same or similar scenes with the Nikon and Zeiss, it was more or less a wash for me. The lenses did render differently, but I actually liked the more neutral colors of the Nikon. Some of the Zeiss glass seems to add a bit of warmth or something to the image - and to me that's an unwanted "feature". I like to start out fairly neutral and post process from there.
That said, the differences between the Zeiss and Nikon were subtle and not something I felt any normal person viewing my photos would ever notice. (And, like I said, I'm not sure the Zeiss glass was actually "better" in my opinion, just different).
I also didn't like the build quality. Just because it's a metal lens, doesn't make it better. I shoot landscapes and I often do so in wet, rainy, dusty, or similarly harsh environments. The Zeiss glass is not sealed in any way and allows moisture and dust in far too easily for my purposes. After awhile, you get sick of drying them out in your hotel room with a hair dryer. Nikon may have more plastic, but they do keep moisture and dust out better.
So, in short, I didn't see anything special about them, they cost more than the Nikon equivalents, they aren't weather sealed, and even if there is something "special" about them I can easily get the look I want in post.
As such, I don't drink the Zeiss Kool-Aid anymore. In fact, I think the reason people sometimes attack Zeiss glass when these threads come up is because of the premium Zeiss asks for their glass - whereas other 3rd party manufacturers are typically less than their Nikon counterparts. If the premium was actually worth it, I'd be on board, but I just don't see it.
So there you go, just my opinion - shoot whatever makes you happy!
14-24 is my favorite zoom lens, but under totally dark, the extreme short throw of focus ring give me headache. since the infinity stop for that lens is all over the place within zoom range. and it is very hard to align the focusing ring at full darkness cross the range, often I find out my @14mm shots are sharp but 24mm is not enough for 36M. AF is totally useless at full darkness. I will just list one scenario why I prefer manual lens sometimes...Show more →
I agree 100% about the 14-24 at night - those are one of the few times I wish I had my 18 or 21 back
Also, I've never shot an Otus, so my comments are only focused on the lenses I mentioned. I'd certainly be willing to try an Otus, and I'm sure it would impress.
Mar 04, 2016 at 12:15 PM
p.9 #5The mystery of the Zeiss look?
chez wrote:
Since this thread is about Zeiss lenses, I think a few pics taken with Zeiss lenses is in order.
harry
Fantastic work, chez. I always appreciate great work but you know I can give you a beat up Vivitar with fungus and you'll still create great images with it. Zeiss is great but don't give it too much credit.. it's you who's making them.
Since this thread is about Zeiss lenses, I think a few pics taken with Zeiss lenses is in order.
harry
Fantastic work, chez. I always appreciate great work but you know I can give you a beat up Vivitar with fungus and you'll still create great images with it. Zeiss is great but don't give it too much credit.. it's you who's making them.
Mar 04, 2016 at 12:21 PM
p.9 #6The mystery of the Zeiss look?
gdanmitchell wrote:
SKumar25 wrote
If there is a measurable difference between 2 things, small or large, then an argument along the lines of "confirmation bias" is invalid...Unless you bring psychological biases into play then confirmation bias is not valid with someone who assesses significant differences to them that are measurable.
Theories / labels along the lines of "emperors clothes" and confirmation bias in this context are quite demeaning and indicate issues with you than anything else.
Mar 04, 2016 at 12:25 PM
p.9 #7The mystery of the Zeiss look?
SKumar25 wrote:
gdanmitchell wrote
SKumar25 wrote
If there is a measurable difference between 2 things, small or large, then an argument along the lines of "confirmation bias" is invalid...Theories / labels along the lines of "emperors clothes" and confirmation bias in this context are quite demeaning and indicate issues with you than anything else.
Especially so when one continues the same barrage on every thread about Zeiss. You really have to wonder.
Mar 04, 2016 at 12:32 PM
p.9 #8The mystery of the Zeiss look?
Andre Labonte wrote:
I owned this lens for several years; sold it a year or so ago; and now I got it again because I actually missed it quite a bit. I didn't miss the "look" as I still have no idea what the Zeiss look is. I missed the feeling I got shooting landscapes with it. Even though this lens is large, heavy, and manual focus only, it ended up being attached to my camera more often than not whenever I went out on a walk or a hike. I looked forward to using it.
Despite that, I sold it and my 35mm Nikon prime in favor of a zoom that would cover roughly the same range, but what was gained in convenience was lost in the emotional attachment I had to the photographing process (if that makes sense). Were my images somehow worse with the zoom? Not in any meaningful way (pixel peeping excluded). I just enjoyed myself less while shooting. I now went back to my 35mm & 100mm set up and am really looking forward to shooting again.
I guess my point is that there is an emotional undercurrent to photography that quietly influences our decisions and tendencies but that perhaps gets overshadowed by more pragmatic and rational concerns. In attributing a particular technical advantage to Zeiss lenses, some photographers may simply be trying to rationalize something that really cannot be rationalized.What you just described is totally logical in my book. The experience of shooting with the lens because it "fits" you and your style of shooting during use is a personal experience but a very real one. Your claim is something personal and not at all anything like the fallacious claims make about the "Zeiss Look".
Andre, After own many different brand lens, I have to say I agree there is Zeiss Look or Leica look even Canon Look. Even it has to be treat individually often for different lens within brand but still I believe what I see. I won't claim whoever can't see it wrong but I must say without using certain lens over long period is very hard to generalize the idea as variable getting infinity magnified for different users, lighting and PP. Even for the same user, this is complicate matter as condition change widely. but the impression is clear to me when I browse my photo collection. 90% I am right which lens I used without look the EXIF.(I shoot 90% WO)
I won't deny that I may well fail blind test for particular case especially once at the lens stop down.
Edit: and I want add it is more and more difficult to trace lens character now days as all manufacture designed the lens perfectly and too good to differentiate each others. Use Alt board terminology: characterless. Hence, why I keep and collect my old collection.
Edited on Mar 04, 2016 at 12:39 PM · View previous versions
GoranPhoto wrote
I posted earlier in this thread, but I felt compelled to do so again because I actually just bought the Zeiss 100mm f2 makro planar lens.I owned this lens for several years; sold it a year or so ago; and now I got it again because I actually missed it quite a bit. I didn't miss the "look" as I still have no idea what the Zeiss look is. I missed the feeling I got shooting landscapes with it. Even though this lens is large, heavy, and manual focus only, it ended up being attached to my camera more often than not whenever I went out on a walk or a hike. I looked forward to using it.
Despite that, I sold it and my 35mm Nikon prime in favor of a zoom that would cover roughly the same range, but what was gained in convenience was lost in the emotional attachment I had to the photographing process (if that makes sense). Were my images somehow worse with the zoom? Not in any meaningful way (pixel peeping excluded). I just enjoyed myself less while shooting. I now went back to my 35mm & 100mm set up and am really looking forward to shooting again.
I guess my point is that there is an emotional undercurrent to photography that quietly influences our decisions and tendencies but that perhaps gets overshadowed by more pragmatic and rational concerns. In attributing a particular technical advantage to Zeiss lenses, some photographers may simply be trying to rationalize something that really cannot be rationalized.
Andre, After own many different brand lens, I have to say I agree there is Zeiss Look or Leica look even Canon Look. Even it has to be treat individually often for different lens within brand but still I believe what I see. I won't claim whoever can't see it wrong but I must say without using certain lens over long period is very hard to generalize the idea as variable getting infinity magnified for different users, lighting and PP. Even for the same user, this is complicate matter as condition change widely. but the impression is clear to me when I browse my photo collection. 90% I am right which lens I used without look the EXIF.(I shoot 90% WO)
I won't deny that I may well fail blind test for particular case especially once at the lens stop down.
Edit: and I want add it is more and more difficult to trace lens character now days as all manufacture designed the lens perfectly and too good to differentiate each others. Use Alt board terminology: characterless. Hence, why I keep and collect my old collection.
Edited on Mar 04, 2016 at 12:39 PM · View previous versions
Mar 04, 2016 at 12:32 PM
p.9 #9The mystery of the Zeiss look?
This fire need some firewood
https://www.hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/2015/12/lens-tests-leica-summicron-c-vs-cooke-s4-film-education/
Warning Summicron alert!
https://www.hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/2015/12/lens-tests-leica-summicron-c-vs-cooke-s4-film-education/
Warning Summicron alert!
Mar 04, 2016 at 12:38 PM
p.9 #10The mystery of the Zeiss look?
naturephoto1 wrote:
You are, as is anyone, of course free to make any choice you want. On a personal level you can choose to use coke bottles for lenses if you want — and I'll bet someone has made interesting photographs with them! ;-)
However...
... quite a few people come here to try to learn about photographic topics. With that in mind, and with all due respect to everyone's freedom to make any choice they wish and to the knowledge that different people have different reasons for their choices, it seems reasonable to discuss the claims about almost any gear choices and the impact of those choices on photography.
So, the person who believes that the funkiest, cheapest, least capable camera in the world is just as fine as something more sophisticated is welcome to his or her opinion... and he/she can expect that other viewpoints will be offered here. In the same way, those who believe that expensive, rare, and specialized lenses will make their photographs better in ways worth the cost are welcome to act on that belief, but they can also expect that other viewpoints will be offered.
Take care,
DanHI, Dan,
I generally agree most your opinions about relationship between gear and photography over different posts. But feel disappointed with your latest respond regarding this matter and you seems can’t keep yourself neutral regarding this topic.
First, if you are really not care about Gear itself, you shouldn’t be even in Gear forum. The reason we are here are because we are interested in discussing about gears. I agree mostly if not 100% that photo quality should be isolated with gear quality after certain threshold level but this has nothing to do with why people want own certain lens over others or this doesn’t mean there is no difference between lenses or manufacture.
It is not your coke bottle terminology can cover the case of why I chose the Zeiss or Leica. I have already given good reasons for it: Manual, Build quality (to me), WO rendering (Leica R, OTUS), Ultimate performance (OTUS and 135APO). I am offer my opinion because I want list one case to illustrate why people choose Zeiss or Leica. This has nothing to do with ” In the same way, those who believe that expensive, rare, and specialized lenses will make their photographs better in ways worth the cost are welcome to act on that belief, but they can also expect that other viewpoints will be offered. “ You seems set yourself in confirmation bias loop here.
I want hear what claim you try to make?
All these stem from some people challenge the choices others made. So I want make it clear why I choose the lens I want. What is your disagreement?
Even 5 years ago, there were very good reasons for people choose Zeiss over Canikon. I like Andre’s approach break down the line to individual focal length to make point clear. If you following Zeiss thread, you will realize 80% of users having 21mm&100mm which are strongest two Zeiss lenses compare to any brand over long period. (now OTUS will be a good reason to buy Zeiss as well if you are after what is specialized for, no Canikon offer that.) Before 16-35 and 11-24, there is no WA canon can compete with it. Nikon users are lucky to have 14-24(myself include) so a lot less Nikon user for that lens.
Those few strong performers along as one of few manual only modern lenses gain Zeiss great reputation offering superb manual glass with beautiful rendering and sharpness cross frame. After getting those two, people will get Zeiss fever and start building their Zeiss collection(myself included) adding other strong performers like 35distagon, 50MP, 25 and latestly 15 and 135.
So, whenever I see people proud saying their Zeiss glass great I feel very naturally accept that even nowdays the only Zeiss I have are 55&135, what is wrong is it?hmmmm ... lots of straw man arguments here ... or at the very least taking Dan out of context ... just saying.
e.g. Not caring what someone used to make a beautiful image is not the same as not caring about gear at all. We all have to care about gear to some degree, but it's a question of when and how.Hi Andre,
You may wish to look at the profiles of some of us from the Alt and Sony Forums that you may not know. Many of us that have known Michael and Harry for years, have some idea as who they are, the equipment that they use, their preferences, as well as the work that they produce.
Rich
I was not addressing you, but zhangyue, and even Dan responded that zhangyue is taking him out of context.
Andre Labonte wrote
zhangyue wrote
gdanmitchell wrote
zhangyue wrote
There is a pattern for this kind of thread every time show up. I don't need defend my choice if I feel there is a difference existing either objectively or subjectively...However...
... quite a few people come here to try to learn about photographic topics. With that in mind, and with all due respect to everyone's freedom to make any choice they wish and to the knowledge that different people have different reasons for their choices, it seems reasonable to discuss the claims about almost any gear choices and the impact of those choices on photography.
So, the person who believes that the funkiest, cheapest, least capable camera in the world is just as fine as something more sophisticated is welcome to his or her opinion... and he/she can expect that other viewpoints will be offered here. In the same way, those who believe that expensive, rare, and specialized lenses will make their photographs better in ways worth the cost are welcome to act on that belief, but they can also expect that other viewpoints will be offered.
Take care,
Dan
I generally agree most your opinions about relationship between gear and photography over different posts. But feel disappointed with your latest respond regarding this matter and you seems can’t keep yourself neutral regarding this topic.
First, if you are really not care about Gear itself, you shouldn’t be even in Gear forum. The reason we are here are because we are interested in discussing about gears. I agree mostly if not 100% that photo quality should be isolated with gear quality after certain threshold level but this has nothing to do with why people want own certain lens over others or this doesn’t mean there is no difference between lenses or manufacture.
It is not your coke bottle terminology can cover the case of why I chose the Zeiss or Leica. I have already given good reasons for it: Manual, Build quality (to me), WO rendering (Leica R, OTUS), Ultimate performance (OTUS and 135APO). I am offer my opinion because I want list one case to illustrate why people choose Zeiss or Leica. This has nothing to do with ” In the same way, those who believe that expensive, rare, and specialized lenses will make their photographs better in ways worth the cost are welcome to act on that belief, but they can also expect that other viewpoints will be offered. “ You seems set yourself in confirmation bias loop here.
I want hear what claim you try to make?
All these stem from some people challenge the choices others made. So I want make it clear why I choose the lens I want. What is your disagreement?
Even 5 years ago, there were very good reasons for people choose Zeiss over Canikon. I like Andre’s approach break down the line to individual focal length to make point clear. If you following Zeiss thread, you will realize 80% of users having 21mm&100mm which are strongest two Zeiss lenses compare to any brand over long period. (now OTUS will be a good reason to buy Zeiss as well if you are after what is specialized for, no Canikon offer that.) Before 16-35 and 11-24, there is no WA canon can compete with it. Nikon users are lucky to have 14-24(myself include) so a lot less Nikon user for that lens.
Those few strong performers along as one of few manual only modern lenses gain Zeiss great reputation offering superb manual glass with beautiful rendering and sharpness cross frame. After getting those two, people will get Zeiss fever and start building their Zeiss collection(myself included) adding other strong performers like 35distagon, 50MP, 25 and latestly 15 and 135.
So, whenever I see people proud saying their Zeiss glass great I feel very naturally accept that even nowdays the only Zeiss I have are 55&135, what is wrong is it?
e.g. Not caring what someone used to make a beautiful image is not the same as not caring about gear at all. We all have to care about gear to some degree, but it's a question of when and how.
You may wish to look at the profiles of some of us from the Alt and Sony Forums that you may not know. Many of us that have known Michael and Harry for years, have some idea as who they are, the equipment that they use, their preferences, as well as the work that they produce.
Rich
I was not addressing you, but zhangyue, and even Dan responded that zhangyue is taking him out of context.
Mar 04, 2016 at 12:41 PM
p.9 #11The mystery of the Zeiss look?
zhangyue wrote:
I owned this lens for several years; sold it a year or so ago; and now I got it again because I actually missed it quite a bit. I didn't miss the "look" as I still have no idea what the Zeiss look is. I missed the feeling I got shooting landscapes with it. Even though this lens is large, heavy, and manual focus only, it ended up being attached to my camera more often than not whenever I went out on a walk or a hike. I looked forward to using it.
Despite that, I sold it and my 35mm Nikon prime in favor of a zoom that would cover roughly the same range, but what was gained in convenience was lost in the emotional attachment I had to the photographing process (if that makes sense). Were my images somehow worse with the zoom? Not in any meaningful way (pixel peeping excluded). I just enjoyed myself less while shooting. I now went back to my 35mm & 100mm set up and am really looking forward to shooting again.
I guess my point is that there is an emotional undercurrent to photography that quietly influences our decisions and tendencies but that perhaps gets overshadowed by more pragmatic and rational concerns. In attributing a particular technical advantage to Zeiss lenses, some photographers may simply be trying to rationalize something that really cannot be rationalized.What you just described is totally logical in my book. The experience of shooting with the lens because it "fits" you and your style of shooting during use is a personal experience but a very real one. Your claim is something personal and not at all anything like the fallacious claims make about the "Zeiss Look".Andre, After own many different brand lens, I have to say I agree there is Zeiss Look or Leica look even Canon Look. Even it has to be treat individually often for different lens within brand but still I believe what I see. I won't claim whoever can't see it wrong but I must say without using certain lens over long period is very hard to generalize the idea as variable getting infinity magnified for different users, lighting and PP. Even for the same user, this is complicate matter as condition change widely. but the impression is clear to me...Show more →
*****************************
If you can't pass the blind test with some reasonable level of correlation, then it's a perception and not a reality.
I'll agree to disagree with you.
Andre Labonte wrote
GoranPhoto wrote
I posted earlier in this thread, but I felt compelled to do so again because I actually just bought the Zeiss 100mm f2 makro planar lens.I owned this lens for several years; sold it a year or so ago; and now I got it again because I actually missed it quite a bit. I didn't miss the "look" as I still have no idea what the Zeiss look is. I missed the feeling I got shooting landscapes with it. Even though this lens is large, heavy, and manual focus only, it ended up being attached to my camera more often than not whenever I went out on a walk or a hike. I looked forward to using it.
Despite that, I sold it and my 35mm Nikon prime in favor of a zoom that would cover roughly the same range, but what was gained in convenience was lost in the emotional attachment I had to the photographing process (if that makes sense). Were my images somehow worse with the zoom? Not in any meaningful way (pixel peeping excluded). I just enjoyed myself less while shooting. I now went back to my 35mm & 100mm set up and am really looking forward to shooting again.
I guess my point is that there is an emotional undercurrent to photography that quietly influences our decisions and tendencies but that perhaps gets overshadowed by more pragmatic and rational concerns. In attributing a particular technical advantage to Zeiss lenses, some photographers may simply be trying to rationalize something that really cannot be rationalized.
*****************************
If you can't pass the blind test with some reasonable level of correlation, then it's a perception and not a reality.
I'll agree to disagree with you.
Mar 04, 2016 at 12:43 PM
p.9 #12The mystery of the Zeiss look?
Andre Labonte wrote:
I owned this lens for several years; sold it a year or so ago; and now I got it again because I actually missed it quite a bit. I didn't miss the "look" as I still have no idea what the Zeiss look is. I missed the feeling I got shooting landscapes with it. Even though this lens is large, heavy, and manual focus only, it ended up being attached to my camera more often than not whenever I went out on a walk or a hike. I looked forward to using it.
Despite that, I sold it and my 35mm Nikon prime in favor of a zoom that would cover roughly the same range, but what was gained in convenience was lost in the emotional attachment I had to the photographing process (if that makes sense). Were my images somehow worse with the zoom? Not in any meaningful way (pixel peeping excluded). I just enjoyed myself less while shooting. I now went back to my 35mm & 100mm set up and am really looking forward to shooting again.
I guess my point is that there is an emotional undercurrent to photography that quietly influences our decisions and tendencies but that perhaps gets overshadowed by more pragmatic and rational concerns. In attributing a particular technical advantage to Zeiss lenses, some photographers may simply be trying to rationalize something that really cannot be rationalized.What you just described is totally logical in my book. The experience of shooting with the lens because it "fits" you and your style of shooting during use is a personal experience but a very real one. Your claim is something personal and not at all anything like the fallacious claims make about the "Zeiss Look".Andre, After own many different brand lens, I have to say I agree there is Zeiss Look or Leica look even Canon Look. Even it has to be treat individually often for different lens within brand but still I believe what I see. I won't claim whoever can't see it wrong but I must say without using certain lens over long period is very hard to generalize the idea as variable getting infinity magnified for different users, lighting and PP. Even for the same user, this is complicate matter as condition change widely. but the impression is clear to me when I browse my photo collection. 90% I am right which lens I used without look the EXIF.(I shoot 90% WO)
I won't deny that I may well fail blind test for particular case especially once at the lens stop down.
Edit: and I want add it is more and more difficult to trace lens character now days as all manufacture designed the lens perfectly and too good to differentiate each others. Use Alt board terminology: characterless. Hence, why I keep and collect my old collection.*****************************
If you can't pass the blind test with some reasonable level of correlation, then it's a perception and not a reality.
I'll agree to disagree with you.
I said consistently meaning 100%, is that unreasonable?
Too bad for you. It is really good for your wallet though
Can you tell me is it from 50mm Nikon or Zeiss at 1.4? I can post 100% zoom later.
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1486/25374221842_25e2474bd3_b.jpg
zhangyue wrote
Andre Labonte wrote
GoranPhoto wrote
I posted earlier in this thread, but I felt compelled to do so again because I actually just bought the Zeiss 100mm f2 makro planar lens.I owned this lens for several years; sold it a year or so ago; and now I got it again because I actually missed it quite a bit. I didn't miss the "look" as I still have no idea what the Zeiss look is. I missed the feeling I got shooting landscapes with it. Even though this lens is large, heavy, and manual focus only, it ended up being attached to my camera more often than not whenever I went out on a walk or a hike. I looked forward to using it.
Despite that, I sold it and my 35mm Nikon prime in favor of a zoom that would cover roughly the same range, but what was gained in convenience was lost in the emotional attachment I had to the photographing process (if that makes sense). Were my images somehow worse with the zoom? Not in any meaningful way (pixel peeping excluded). I just enjoyed myself less while shooting. I now went back to my 35mm & 100mm set up and am really looking forward to shooting again.
I guess my point is that there is an emotional undercurrent to photography that quietly influences our decisions and tendencies but that perhaps gets overshadowed by more pragmatic and rational concerns. In attributing a particular technical advantage to Zeiss lenses, some photographers may simply be trying to rationalize something that really cannot be rationalized.
I won't deny that I may well fail blind test for particular case especially once at the lens stop down.
Edit: and I want add it is more and more difficult to trace lens character now days as all manufacture designed the lens perfectly and too good to differentiate each others. Use Alt board terminology: characterless. Hence, why I keep and collect my old collection.
If you can't pass the blind test with some reasonable level of correlation, then it's a perception and not a reality.
I'll agree to disagree with you.
I said consistently meaning 100%, is that unreasonable?
Too bad for you. It is really good for your wallet though
Can you tell me is it from 50mm Nikon or Zeiss at 1.4? I can post 100% zoom later.
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1486/25374221842_25e2474bd3_b.jpg
Mar 04, 2016 at 12:49 PM
p.9 #13The mystery of the Zeiss look?
zhangyue wrote:
Can you tell me is it from 50mm Nikon or Zeiss at 1.4? I can post 100% zoom later.
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1486/25374221842_25e2474bd3_b.jpg
Removing the exif info is cheating
Can you tell me is it from 50mm Nikon or Zeiss at 1.4? I can post 100% zoom later.
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1486/25374221842_25e2474bd3_b.jpg
Removing the exif info is cheating
Mar 04, 2016 at 12:54 PM
p.9 #14The mystery of the Zeiss look?
Javier Munoz wrote:
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1486/25374221842_25e2474bd3_b.jpgRemoving the exif info is cheating
untitled-3 by ZHNL, on Flickr
Here you go, following the link.
zhangyue wrote
Can you tell me is it from 50mm Nikon or Zeiss at 1.4? I can post 100% zoom later.https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1486/25374221842_25e2474bd3_b.jpg
untitled-3 by ZHNL, on FlickrHere you go, following the link.
Mar 04, 2016 at 12:56 PM
p.9 #15The mystery of the Zeiss look?
zhangyue wrote:
I owned this lens for several years; sold it a year or so ago; and now I got it again because I actually missed it quite a bit. I didn't miss the "look" as I still have no idea what the Zeiss look is. I missed the feeling I got shooting landscapes with it. Even though this lens is large, heavy, and manual focus only, it ended up being attached to my camera more often than not whenever I went out on a walk or a hike. I looked forward to using it.
Despite that, I sold it and my 35mm Nikon prime in favor of a zoom that would cover roughly the same range, but what was gained in convenience was lost in the emotional attachment I had to the photographing process (if that makes sense). Were my images somehow worse with the zoom? Not in any meaningful way (pixel peeping excluded). I just enjoyed myself less while shooting. I now went back to my 35mm & 100mm set up and am really looking forward to shooting again.
I guess my point is that there is an emotional undercurrent to photography that quietly influences our decisions and tendencies but that perhaps gets overshadowed by more pragmatic and rational concerns. In attributing a particular technical advantage to Zeiss lenses, some photographers may simply be trying to rationalize something that really cannot be rationalized.What you just described is totally logical in my book. The experience of shooting with the lens because it "fits" you and your style of shooting during use is a personal experience but a very real one. Your claim is something personal and not at all anything like the fallacious claims make about the "Zeiss Look".Andre, After own many different brand lens, I have to say I agree there is Zeiss Look or Leica look even Canon Look. Even it has to be treat individually often for different lens within brand but still I believe what I see. I won't claim whoever can't see it wrong but I must say without using certain lens over long period is very hard to generalize the idea as variable getting infinity magnified for different users, lighting and PP. Even for the same user, this is complicate matter as condition change widely. but the impression is clear to me when I browse my photo collection. 90% I am right which lens I used without look the EXIF.(I shoot 90% WO)
I won't deny that I may well fail blind test for particular case especially once at the lens stop down.
Edit: and I want add it is more and more difficult to trace lens character now days as all manufacture designed the lens perfectly and too good to differentiate each others. Use Alt board terminology: characterless. Hence, why I keep and collect my old collection.*****************************
If you can't pass the blind test with some reasonable level of correlation, then it's a perception and not a reality.
I'll agree to disagree with you.I said consistently meaning 100%, is that unreasonable?
Too bad for you. It is really good for your wallet though
Can you tell me is it from 50mm Nikon or Zeiss at 1.4? I can post 100% zoom later.
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1486/25374221842_25e2474bd3_b.jpg
shooting starscapes at f/1.4 it's always easy to tell the otus from any oem lens. i haven't seen how the sigma art performs though, would it be as easy to tell the two apart?
Andre Labonte wrote
zhangyue wrote
Andre Labonte wrote
GoranPhoto wrote
I posted earlier in this thread, but I felt compelled to do so again because I actually just bought the Zeiss 100mm f2 makro planar lens.I owned this lens for several years; sold it a year or so ago; and now I got it again because I actually missed it quite a bit. I didn't miss the "look" as I still have no idea what the Zeiss look is. I missed the feeling I got shooting landscapes with it. Even though this lens is large, heavy, and manual focus only, it ended up being attached to my camera more often than not whenever I went out on a walk or a hike. I looked forward to using it.
Despite that, I sold it and my 35mm Nikon prime in favor of a zoom that would cover roughly the same range, but what was gained in convenience was lost in the emotional attachment I had to the photographing process (if that makes sense). Were my images somehow worse with the zoom? Not in any meaningful way (pixel peeping excluded). I just enjoyed myself less while shooting. I now went back to my 35mm & 100mm set up and am really looking forward to shooting again.
I guess my point is that there is an emotional undercurrent to photography that quietly influences our decisions and tendencies but that perhaps gets overshadowed by more pragmatic and rational concerns. In attributing a particular technical advantage to Zeiss lenses, some photographers may simply be trying to rationalize something that really cannot be rationalized.
I won't deny that I may well fail blind test for particular case especially once at the lens stop down.
Edit: and I want add it is more and more difficult to trace lens character now days as all manufacture designed the lens perfectly and too good to differentiate each others. Use Alt board terminology: characterless. Hence, why I keep and collect my old collection.
If you can't pass the blind test with some reasonable level of correlation, then it's a perception and not a reality.
I'll agree to disagree with you.
Too bad for you. It is really good for your wallet though
Can you tell me is it from 50mm Nikon or Zeiss at 1.4? I can post 100% zoom later.
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1486/25374221842_25e2474bd3_b.jpg
shooting starscapes at f/1.4 it's always easy to tell the otus from any oem lens. i haven't seen how the sigma art performs though, would it be as easy to tell the two apart?
Mar 04, 2016 at 01:15 PM
p.9 #16The mystery of the Zeiss look?
I don't see how a child's story that teaches a truism about how people can be persuaded to believe things or accept things is demeaning. It is actually a very important lesson, and the story illustrates an important and real concept.
It does not follow that all belief is wrong, but it also suggests that belief is not the same as fact.
Regarding your first point about confirmation bias, it is directly relevant in a case like this. The existence of confirmation bias does not prove or disprove the existence of differences between test cases (e.g. - two lenses are not identical) but it can explain some factors that may affect the evaluation of those differences (e.g. - a product thought to be "special" or one that is more expensive may be thought to be better as a starting point.)
This simply affirms the dangers (and we all are at risk, myself included) of finding the result we hope for and not the result that is.
Dan
SKumar25 wrote:
Not at all. There are virtually always measurable differences between two different things. There are, no doubt, measurable differences among all of the possible lenses that people might be thinking of in this discussion, for example.Unless you bring psychological biases into play then confirmation bias is not valid with someone who assesses significant differences to them that are measurable.
Theories / labels along the lines of "emperors clothes" and confirmation bias in this context are quite demeaning and indicate issues with you than anything else.
Edited on Mar 04, 2016 at 01:36 PM · View previous versions
It does not follow that all belief is wrong, but it also suggests that belief is not the same as fact.
Regarding your first point about confirmation bias, it is directly relevant in a case like this. The existence of confirmation bias does not prove or disprove the existence of differences between test cases (e.g. - two lenses are not identical) but it can explain some factors that may affect the evaluation of those differences (e.g. - a product thought to be "special" or one that is more expensive may be thought to be better as a starting point.)
This simply affirms the dangers (and we all are at risk, myself included) of finding the result we hope for and not the result that is.
Dan
SKumar25 wrote:
gdanmitchell wrote
SKumar25 wrote
If there is a measurable difference between 2 things, small or large, then an argument along the lines of "confirmation bias" is invalid...Theories / labels along the lines of "emperors clothes" and confirmation bias in this context are quite demeaning and indicate issues with you than anything else.
Edited on Mar 04, 2016 at 01:36 PM · View previous versions
Mar 04, 2016 at 01:17 PM
p.9 #17The mystery of the Zeiss look?
sebboh wrote:
zhangyue wrote
Andre Labonte wrote
zhangyue wrote
Andre Labonte wrote
GoranPhoto wrote
I posted earlier in this thread, but I felt compelled to do so again because I actually just bought the Zeiss 100mm f2 makro planar lens.I owned this lens for several years; sold it a year or so ago; and now I got it again because I actually missed it quite a bit. I didn't miss the "look" as I still have no idea what the Zeiss look is. I missed the feeling I got shooting landscapes with it. Even though this lens is large, heavy, and manual focus only, it ended up being attached to my camera more often than not whenever I went out on a walk or a hike. I looked forward to using it.
Despite that, I sold it and my 35mm Nikon prime in favor of a zoom that would cover roughly the same range, but what was gained in convenience was lost in the emotional attachment I had to the photographing process (if that makes sense). Were my images somehow worse with the zoom? Not in any meaningful way (pixel peeping excluded). I just enjoyed myself less while shooting. I now went back to my 35mm & 100mm set up and am really looking forward to shooting again.
I guess my point is that there is an emotional undercurrent to photography that quietly influences our decisions and tendencies but that perhaps gets overshadowed by more pragmatic and rational concerns. In attributing a particular technical advantage to Zeiss lenses, some photographers may simply be trying to rationalize something that really cannot be rationalized.
I won't deny that I may well fail blind test for particular case especially once at the lens stop down.
Edit: and I want add it is more and more difficult to trace lens character now days as all manufacture designed the lens perfectly and too good to differentiate each others. Use Alt board terminology: characterless. Hence, why I keep and collect my old collection.
If you can't pass the blind test with some reasonable level of correlation, then it's a perception and not a reality.
I'll agree to disagree with you.
Too bad for you. It is really good for your wallet though
Can you tell me is it from 50mm Nikon or Zeiss at 1.4? I can post 100% zoom later.
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1486/25374221842_25e2474bd3_b.jpg
Haha, I know but shooting portrait is even easier to tell with back ground kick in
OTUS has great coma and CA performance. Don't know ART though but I am sure i can tell them apart if shooting portrait WO. Mar 04, 2016 at 01:29 PM
p.9 #18The mystery of the Zeiss look?
Enough of this "children's story" dribble. Who's interested in the Loxia 21mm when it finally is available. I'm definitely going to rent one to see how it stacks up against the Distagon 21mm...to see if I get more 3D POP.
Mar 04, 2016 at 02:07 PM
p.9 #19The mystery of the Zeiss look?
zhangyue wrote:
Andre, After own many different brand lens, I have to say I agree there is Zeiss Look or Leica look even Canon Look. Even it has to be treat individually often for different lens within brand but still I believe what I see. I won't claim whoever can't see it wrong but I must say without using certain lens over long period is very hard to generalize the idea as variable getting infinity magnified for different users, lighting and PP. Even for the same user, this is complicate matter as condition change widely. but the impression is clear to me when I browse my photo collection. 90% I am right which lens I used without look the EXIF.(I shoot 90% WO)
I won't deny that I may well fail blind test for particular case especially once at the lens stop down.
Edit: and I want add it is more and more difficult to trace lens character now days as all manufacture designed the lens perfectly and too good to differentiate each others. Use Alt board terminology: characterless. Hence, why I keep and collect my old collection.*****************************
If you can't pass the blind test with some reasonable level of correlation, then it's a perception and not a reality.
I'll agree to disagree with you.I said consistently meaning 100%, is that unreasonable?
Too bad for you. It is really good for your wallet though
Can you tell me is it from 50mm Nikon or Zeiss at 1.4? I can post 100% zoom later.
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1486/25374221842_25e2474bd3_b.jpgshooting starscapes at f/1.4 it's always easy to tell the otus from any oem lens. i haven't seen how the sigma art performs though, would it be as easy to tell the two apart?Haha, I know but shooting portrait is even easier to tell with back ground kick in OTUS has great coma and CA performance. Don't know ART though but I am sure i can tell them apart if shooting portrait WO.
certainly easy to tell with wide open portraits the otus versus traditional double gauss designs, might be more difficult with the sigma art (it's also very different from the typical 50/1.4 look)? i'm not terribly fond of the otus look for portraits, in many situations i prefer the look of my old rokkor or the lux asph. you had the new nikkor 58/1.4 right? how did that compare portrait wise to otus vs your other fast 50s?
sebboh wrote
zhangyue wrote
Andre Labonte wrote
zhangyue wrote
Andre Labonte wrote
What you just described is totally logical in my book. The experience of shooting with the lens because it "fits" you and your style of shooting during use is a personal experience but a very real one. Your claim is something personal and not at all anything like the fallacious claims make about the "Zeiss Look".I won't deny that I may well fail blind test for particular case especially once at the lens stop down.
Edit: and I want add it is more and more difficult to trace lens character now days as all manufacture designed the lens perfectly and too good to differentiate each others. Use Alt board terminology: characterless. Hence, why I keep and collect my old collection.
If you can't pass the blind test with some reasonable level of correlation, then it's a perception and not a reality.
I'll agree to disagree with you.
Too bad for you. It is really good for your wallet though
Can you tell me is it from 50mm Nikon or Zeiss at 1.4? I can post 100% zoom later.
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1486/25374221842_25e2474bd3_b.jpg
OTUS has great coma and CA performance. Don't know ART though but I am sure i can tell them apart if shooting portrait WO. certainly easy to tell with wide open portraits the otus versus traditional double gauss designs, might be more difficult with the sigma art (it's also very different from the typical 50/1.4 look)? i'm not terribly fond of the otus look for portraits, in many situations i prefer the look of my old rokkor or the lux asph. you had the new nikkor 58/1.4 right? how did that compare portrait wise to otus vs your other fast 50s?
Mar 04, 2016 at 02:10 PM
p.9 #20The mystery of the Zeiss look?
Andre Labonte wrote:
I owned this lens for several years; sold it a year or so ago; and now I got it again because I actually missed it quite a bit. I didn't miss the "look" as I still have no idea what the Zeiss look is. I missed the feeling I got shooting landscapes with it. Even though this lens is large, heavy, and manual focus only, it ended up being attached to my camera more often than not whenever I went out on a walk or a hike. I looked forward to using it.
Despite that, I sold it and my 35mm Nikon prime in favor of a zoom that would cover roughly the same range, but what was gained in convenience was lost in the emotional attachment I had to the photographing process (if that makes sense). Were my images somehow worse with the zoom? Not in any meaningful way (pixel peeping excluded). I just enjoyed myself less while shooting. I now went back to my 35mm & 100mm set up and am really looking forward to shooting again.
I guess my point is that there is an emotional undercurrent to photography that quietly influences our decisions and tendencies but that perhaps gets overshadowed by more pragmatic and rational concerns. In attributing a particular technical advantage to Zeiss lenses, some photographers may simply be trying to rationalize something that really cannot be rationalized.What you just described is totally logical in my book. The experience of shooting with the lens because it "fits" you and your style of shooting during use is a personal experience but a very real one. Your claim is something personal and not at all anything like the fallacious claims make about the "Zeiss Look".Andre, After own many different brand lens, I have to say I agree there is Zeiss Look or Leica look even Canon Look. Even it has to be treat individually often for different lens within brand but still I believe what I see. I won't claim whoever can't see it wrong but I must say without using certain lens over long period is very hard to generalize the idea as variable getting infinity magnified for different users, lighting and PP. Even for the same user, this is complicate matter as condition change widely. but the impression is clear to me when I browse my photo collection. 90% I am right which lens I used without look the EXIF.(I shoot 90% WO)
I won't deny that I may well fail blind test for particular case especially once at the lens stop down.
Edit: and I want add it is more and more difficult to trace lens character now days as all manufacture designed the lens perfectly and too good to differentiate each others. Use Alt board terminology: characterless. Hence, why I keep and collect my old collection.*****************************
If you can't pass the blind test with some reasonable level of correlation, then it's a perception and not a reality.
I'll agree to disagree with you.
I can pass any test. But the test has to be on my terms.
The issue with these blind tests are that for the most part, lenses are more similar then they are different. The differences only become apparent in a varying degree of situations. Lighting, distance to subject - to background. Etc etc. BUT it's the differences that make a lens worth it for me. No matter how high or low the cost is (as in, I don't care if the lens is cheap as long as it's good). Also lenses change a slight bit based on the body you use them on.
My terms: I would want to see a bunch of images shot with lens A and a bunch of images shot with lens B, and then I'll guess. Since it's not likely that with one image taken with each lens, you'll happen to shoot it showing off the "better" lens' defining characteristics. This would have to be assuming I've used lens A or B enough to understand what I like/am looking for in said test.
Certain lenses do have pleasing to me characteristics that I don't find in other lenses. I've gone through almost EVERYTHING available and interesting to me. And have come up with a small combination of gear that suits my work needs as well as satisfies my joy of shooting. Sometimes the two overlap sometimes they don't.
Anyway, I've found my gear choices to be a terrible waste of money (in some cases I have a camera body just to use one lens), but it makes me happy.
zhangyue wrote
Andre Labonte wrote
GoranPhoto wrote
I posted earlier in this thread, but I felt compelled to do so again because I actually just bought the Zeiss 100mm f2 makro planar lens.I owned this lens for several years; sold it a year or so ago; and now I got it again because I actually missed it quite a bit. I didn't miss the "look" as I still have no idea what the Zeiss look is. I missed the feeling I got shooting landscapes with it. Even though this lens is large, heavy, and manual focus only, it ended up being attached to my camera more often than not whenever I went out on a walk or a hike. I looked forward to using it.
Despite that, I sold it and my 35mm Nikon prime in favor of a zoom that would cover roughly the same range, but what was gained in convenience was lost in the emotional attachment I had to the photographing process (if that makes sense). Were my images somehow worse with the zoom? Not in any meaningful way (pixel peeping excluded). I just enjoyed myself less while shooting. I now went back to my 35mm & 100mm set up and am really looking forward to shooting again.
I guess my point is that there is an emotional undercurrent to photography that quietly influences our decisions and tendencies but that perhaps gets overshadowed by more pragmatic and rational concerns. In attributing a particular technical advantage to Zeiss lenses, some photographers may simply be trying to rationalize something that really cannot be rationalized.
I won't deny that I may well fail blind test for particular case especially once at the lens stop down.
Edit: and I want add it is more and more difficult to trace lens character now days as all manufacture designed the lens perfectly and too good to differentiate each others. Use Alt board terminology: characterless. Hence, why I keep and collect my old collection.
If you can't pass the blind test with some reasonable level of correlation, then it's a perception and not a reality.
I'll agree to disagree with you.
I can pass any test. But the test has to be on my terms.
The issue with these blind tests are that for the most part, lenses are more similar then they are different. The differences only become apparent in a varying degree of situations. Lighting, distance to subject - to background. Etc etc. BUT it's the differences that make a lens worth it for me. No matter how high or low the cost is (as in, I don't care if the lens is cheap as long as it's good). Also lenses change a slight bit based on the body you use them on.
My terms: I would want to see a bunch of images shot with lens A and a bunch of images shot with lens B, and then I'll guess. Since it's not likely that with one image taken with each lens, you'll happen to shoot it showing off the "better" lens' defining characteristics. This would have to be assuming I've used lens A or B enough to understand what I like/am looking for in said test.
Certain lenses do have pleasing to me characteristics that I don't find in other lenses. I've gone through almost EVERYTHING available and interesting to me. And have come up with a small combination of gear that suits my work needs as well as satisfies my joy of shooting. Sometimes the two overlap sometimes they don't.
Anyway, I've found my gear choices to be a terrible waste of money (in some cases I have a camera body just to use one lens), but it makes me happy.
Mar 04, 2016 at 02:19 PM